ND Filter

[tanya7x]

I was looking online the other day trying to learn how to take long exposure pictures during the day and read that I'll need an ND Filter. I was just wondering if you guys could give me any ideas on what kind to get. I have a Nikon D3000 with the 18-55mm Kit lens. Any information would be very helpful as I am extremely new to all of this stuff! Thanks

 

[tirediron]

Like any equipment, it depends on your budget. If you want the best, you can spend $450 on a variable ND from Singh-Ray which will vary from 1 to 10 stops of neutral density. If you still want the best and can't afford quite that much, than for ~$100 you can get a single value (usually 1, 2, or 3 stop) gel-style filter from Lee or Singh-Ray. Very good ones can be had as regular screw-in filters in 1, 2, or 3 stops from Heliopan and B+W or as a gel-style from Cokin. Decent ones from Tiffen and Hoya cost a little less. DO NOT buy the cheap "packages" of filters that are rampant on Amazon and eBay. They are worse than nothing.

 

[tanya7x]

What do the stops mean? Is it better to have a 1 stop or 3 stop? Sorry I'm so unknowing lol

 

[prodigy2k7]

It means how dark or how much light is being cut. 1 stop vs 10 stops a 10 stop lets in very little light compared to a 1 stop. Longer shutter speeds
It's how you get silky waterfalls and such in bright day light.

 

[tanya7x]

Ohhhhh ok!! Thank you for explaining that! I always wondered how people did that! What's the best stop to get?

 

[tirediron]

A "stop" is the unit exposure is measured in. If one stop is 'X' amount of light, then two stops is twice the amount, and three stops four times the amount of light. So, if you have a shutter speed of 1/250 of a second, and you put a 1 stop ND filter on the lens and change nothing else, then the shutter-speed will be reduced to 1/125. Using a two stop ND would make the shutter-speed 1/60.

 

[vinithbraj]

The following blog entry has some ND related information and how to obtain correct exposures.
Link: Correct exposures with nuetral density (ND) filters | Sense of Sight

Cheers

 

[joaopsr]

Although I kind of agree with tirediron, in this particular case I would buy the cheapest I could get. IMHO, it makes no sense spending big bucks in a good filter to use with that kind of lens. The "bottleneck" here won't be the filter, but the lens itself. This doesn't mean he's wrong, though

 

[cgipson1]

Although I kind of agree with tirediron, in this particular case I would buy the cheapest I could get. IMHO, it makes no sense spending big bucks in a good filter to use with that kind of lens. The "bottleneck" here won't be the filter, but the lens itself. This doesn't mean he's wrong, though

I disagree! Kit lens + bad filter = crap! Whereas kit lens + good filter = OK image!

Plus in the future once she has better lenses, she won't have to replace the filter

 

[Solarflare]

I was kinda lazy and just got me a 52mm B+W ND filter.

Ken Rockwell claims they are the best. It was 50€.

Well, 52mm is of course bad if I would get other lenses that dont have a 52mm filterthread, but so far all my lenses (18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 VR, 35mm f/1.8, 55-200mm f/4-5.6, all are AF-S DX G) have a 52mm filter thread, so I'm good.

Professionals get themselves a 82mm version and an adapter for any other filter size though. This way you dont have to buy any other filter sizes.

Although I kind of agree with tirediron, in this particular case I would buy the cheapest I could get. IMHO, it makes no sense spending big bucks in a good filter to use with that kind of lens. The "bottleneck" here won't be the filter, but the lens itself. This doesn't mean he's wrong, though

Err we talk about Nikon kit lenses here. Yes they are plastic and dark, but optically they are very good.

If you stop it down to f/8 and keep the lens in the range 24-50mm, the 18-55mm is a very good lens. Same for the 18-105mm in the range 24-60mm.

A low quality filter though will kill any such potential. At very least it has to be glass.

 

[joaopsr]

I'm not "extreme" enough to say you guys are wrong, obviously

I agree that cheap filters are crappy and deteriorate IQ. Nonetheless, I see no point on spending $200 on a filter for a kit lens. Especially if it's a "screw-in" filter with such a small diameter. (if I was to do that, I'd buy a 77mm one and a step-up ring)

And kit lenses (even Nikon's) are not "very good". They're acceptable. I know, since I've used Canon's 18-55, Nikon's 18-55 (and also an old 28-85 from film cameras) and Sony's 18-70. They're all more than enough for web-publishing and small prints, and not even close to enough for medium-to-large prints. And I'm not a pixel-peeper, far from it... My Sigma 18-35 is worst than any of the lenses I mentioned before, and I still use it!

It's not that the filter won't make it worst, but I can assure you that a good lens with a $5 filter will give you better result than a kit lens with a $200 filter, and on a bad lens you won't see the result of a cheap filter (not in "real life", anyway).

But, as I said, I tend to agree with your principle... sometimes

 

[Buckster]

Although I kind of agree with tirediron, in this particular case I would buy the cheapest I could get. IMHO, it makes no sense spending big bucks in a good filter to use with that kind of lens. The "bottleneck" here won't be the filter, but the lens itself. This doesn't mean he's wrong, though

I disagree! Kit lens + bad filter = crap!

Let's test that "theory".

Kit lens + cheap Cokin filters (4 of them!!!) STACKED, including cheap Cokin ND filter, on a 5mp camera about 10 years ago:

Oh yeah, that's just horrible!!! :er:

 

[Dao]

Most of the kit lens nowadays are not bad as far as sharpness goes especially if it is stop down to around f/5.6 to f/8. As for the good lens with bad filter, I remembered one of the forum member here thought his new Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 lens was defective because images produced by the lens were soft. He fixed the problem by removing the filter from the lens.

I once saw a Polaroid ND filter review in youtube, not only it made the image soft, but also affect the color of the photo.

 

[Buckster]

Although I kind of agree with tirediron, in this particular case I would buy the cheapest I could get. IMHO, it makes no sense spending big bucks in a good filter to use with that kind of lens. The "bottleneck" here won't be the filter, but the lens itself. This doesn't mean he's wrong, though

I disagree! Kit lens + bad filter = crap!

Let's test that "theory" again...

Kit lens + cheap Cokin ND filter on Canon 20D, a few years ago:

Oh yeah, that's just horrible too!!! :er:

 

[leeroix]

how embarrassing, i would not have had the guts to post those...puke. Just kidding.